Trade Help

[Sean Mooney 1,184]

I'm going to be sitting at 3-1 after this week and feeling pretty comfortable about my team but I am always looking to improve.

 

Currently I have at RB: McCaffrey, Carson, Fournette, Breida, Hyde

At wide receiver I have: Evans, Smith-Schuster, Jones Jr., Ridley, Robby Anderson

At TE I have: Walker, Njoku (who I'm waiting to drop)

I want to try and move Carson/Walker/Ridley for tight end and some wide receiver upgrades. Is someone like Tyler Lockett worth pursuing to pair him with Russell Wilson? The guy who has Lockett also has George Kittle who I might be able to grab because he also has Kelce.

 

Am I tinkering too much or is that worth pursuing.

[AxeElf 787]

If you have Wilson, you wouldn't want to get Lockett, because then you would have a QB and a WR from the same NFL team, and your fantasy team's scoring consistency would suffer.

You're probably about as well off with Walker as you would be with Kittle on a week-to-week basis at TE, and you don't have to give up anything for whatever slight overall upgrade there MIGHT be over the course of the season.

In general, I'd say you're pretty well set, and your record reflects that.

[weepaws 2,460]

I would stay with what you have. 

[oldtimer 84]

23 hours ago, AxeElf said:

If you have Wilson, you wouldn't want to get Lockett, because then you would have a QB and a WR from the same NFL team, and your fantasy team's scoring consistency would suffer.

This isn't always the case.  I would agree for him to stand pat, but there are great examples of people winning leagues based on having the QB/WR from the same team.   Warner/Bruce, Warner/Holt, Mahommes/Kelce, Mahommes/Hill, Brady/Moss, Culpepper/Moss, Culpepper/Carter, Manning/Wayne, Rodgers/Adams, etc. etc.  It's not an ideal situation unless it involves a pass happy team, but don't ever think you are going to "hurt" your team by taking a top combo at QB and WR.  The year Brady/Moss went off, the owner in my main dynasty had both.  He lost one game that season, when the Patriots had a bye week.  He rolled through the Championship Game with ease. 

[AxeElf 787]

37 minutes ago, oldtimer said:

This isn't always the case.

Axually it IS always the case.  The expectation of scoring consistency will be ALWAYS be greater when your QB and WR scores are not correlated, and you can ALWAYS expect your scoring to be more inconsistent when your QB and WR scores are correlated.

Now, if you happen to own the top QB and the top WR in football, and they happen to be on the same team, then yeah, your scores are still likely to be high enough to not lose games even on the "bad" weeks--but your scoring will still be more inconsistent than if you had the top QB and the top WR in football, and they were on different teams.  Like it probly sucked to own Brady and Moss in Week 14 of 2007 (the first week of the fantasy playoffs), when Brady went 140/0/1 and Moss accordingly went 5/79/0.  But yeah, if you have a WR that scores 23 TDs on the season, it's probly going to benefit your fantasy team, no matter who your QB is.

Having a QB/WR stack for a single given game can be a good strategy, if there is a particularly juicy matchup or something, but over the course of the season, you will experience greater variation between "good" QB/WR weeks and "bad" QB/WR weeks if you have a QB and a WR from the same team--the highs will be higher, but the lows will be lower.

P.S.  It's "Mahomes."

[oldtimer 84]

1 hour ago, AxeElf said:

Axually it IS always the case.  The expectation of scoring consistency will be ALWAYS be greater when your QB and WR scores are not correlated, and you can ALWAYS expect your scoring to be more inconsistent when your QB and WR scores are correlated.

Now, if you happen to own the top QB and the top WR in football, and they happen to be on the same team, then yeah, your scores are still likely to be high enough to not lose games even on the "bad" weeks--but your scoring will still be more inconsistent than if you had the top QB and the top WR in football, and they were on different teams.  Like it probly sucked to own Brady and Moss in Week 14 of 2007 (the first week of the fantasy playoffs), when Brady went 140/0/1 and Moss accordingly went 5/79/0.  But yeah, if you have a WR that scores 23 TDs on the season, it's probly going to benefit your fantasy team, no matter who your QB is.

Having a QB/WR stack for a single given game can be a good strategy, if there is a particularly juicy matchup or something, but over the course of the season, you will experience greater variation between "good" QB/WR weeks and "bad" QB/WR weeks if you have a QB and a WR from the same team--the highs will be higher, but the lows will be lower.

P.S.  It's "Mahomes."

So, if you have the top WR and the top QB, doesn't that mean it ISN'T always the case?  I do understand what you are saying, which is why I provided examples.  Only in specific situations is it extremely beneficial, however, it can be just plain beneficial in many circumstances. 

[AxeElf 787]

2 hours ago, oldtimer said:

So, if you have the top WR and the top QB, doesn't that mean it ISN'T always the case?

No.  The expectation of greater inconsistency when the top QB and top WR happen to be on the same NFL team is still the case--the expectation of greater inconsistency is ALWAYS the case for QBs and WRs from the same NFL team--it's just less likely to be as detrimental to your overall success as it would be if the QB and WR were both average fantasy starters.

[Sean Mooney 1,184]

Is maybe Carson for Kittle worth pursuing with the Walker kicker?

 

Or do I try for Witten or Jimmy Graham to replace Njoku and then go matchups with Walker and whomever the rest of the way at tight end?

[AxeElf 787]

40 minutes ago, Sean Mooney said:

Is maybe Carson for Kittle worth pursuing with the Walker kicker?

Or do I try for Witten or Jimmy Graham to replace Njoku and then go matchups with Walker and whomever the rest of the way at tight end?

Carson for Kittle?  Are you crazy?

Just pick up Witten.

[Sean Mooney 1,184]

Just talking all my options out loud.